Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metaphysical foundationalism, heterarchical structure, and Huayan interdependence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Asian Journal of Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard views about metaphysical structure presume that if metaphysical structure is hierarchical, any priority ordering of individuals is rigid or situationally invariant. This paper challenges this presumption. The challenge derives from an effort to interpret the kind of metaphysical structure implicit in writings central to the Huayan tradition of Chinese Buddhism. The Huayan tradition views reality as a realm of thoroughgoing interdependence. Close attention to primary sources indicates that this view does not fit comfortably in any of the metaphysical structures familiar from contemporary analytic metaphysics. Accordingly, this paper also develops a conception of metaphysical structure that rejects the standard presumption. Motivation for this conception derives from attending to certain formal analogies between kinds of metaphysical structure and kinds of social organization. These analogies provide guidance for a conception of metaphysical structure as heterarchical or situationally variable. This conception breaks new ground for analytic metaphysics and opens conceptual space for interpreting Huayan metaphysics as a heterarchical variation of foundationalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a similar notion of foundation, see Rabin & Rabern, 2016, p. 363.

  2. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Chödrön (2001, p. 1717).

  3. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cleary (1993, p. 925).

  4. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cleary (1983, p. 66).

  5. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cleary (1983, pp. 135–136).

  6. Author’s translation.

  7. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cleary (1983, p. 66).

  8. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cleary (1983, p. 136).

  9. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cook (1970, p. 512).

  10. Fazang’s view seems to have some affinities to Fine’s External Relative Non-standard Realism, albeit with respect to metaphysical structure rather than with respect to tense. See Fine (2005). Specifically, Fazang seems to endorse analogues to Fine’s principles of Realism, Neutrality, and Coherence while rejecting Absolutism. I thank Michael Clark for suggesting the connection to Fine’s work.

  11. Author’s translation. For an alternative translation, see Cook (1970, pp. 474–475).

  12. Coherentist interpretations of Huayan metaphysics interpret interdependence as a matter of simultaneous mutual inclusion. This requires that when one has complete power as cause, all others also have complete power as cause. Yet, for Fazang, when one has complete power as cause, all others completely lack power as cause. Insofar as having power and lacking power track distinct ontological aspects of individuals, Fazang’s remarks about mutual inclusion are inconsistent with coherentist interpretations of Huayan metaphysics.

  13. See T45.1866.502a16-18, recited in Cook (1970, p. 450). The conception of projecting one’s own effect is narrower than the conception of having a disposition to produce an effect. The reason is that effects can arise from individuals despite having no connection to the specific characteristics of those individuals. Suppose, for example, that friendliness is the specific characteristic loving-kindness. Then instances of loving-kindness project friendship. Yet even if loving-kindness also has a disposition to reduce stress, instances of loving-kindness do not project stress reduction.

  14. Inclusion, as Fazang conceptualizes it, is a matter of one including another within its range of power rather than within its spatial or temporal location. When x includes y, in Fazang’s technical sense of include, the range of effects over which x has power includes whatever effects y projects.

  15. I thank Andrew Cling for helpful discussion on this point.

  16. I thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments on this point.

  17. Strictly speaking, Kant’s analogy between animal organisms and the ideal state concerns ways of judging organismic and ideal political relations (Huseyinzadegan, 2018, pp. 2558–2560). This subtle difference, between ways of judging relations and the relations themselves, does not affect the point of the example.

  18. Rothbard defines an anarchist society as one in which “there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual” (Rothbard, 1978, p. 191). Rothbard’s anarchist society is an anarchism with respect to social power that involves legally authorizes coercive aggression.

  19. Sahlins assigns the label egalitarian to any social organization that lacks asymmetric power relations: “an egalitarian society is one in which every individual is of equal status…and no one outranks anyone” (Sahlins, 1958, p. 1). Sahlins’ labeling coincides with egalitarianism, as defined in the main text, provided that individuals have equal status by virtue of mutually occupying positions of power over each other. If all individuals have equal status by virtue of none occupying a position of power over another, then anarchism, as defined in the main text, qualifies as an egalitarian social organization in Sahlins’ sense of egalitarian.

  20. For intimations of a similar challenge, deriving from a broader interpretation of Chinese Buddhist metaphysics, see Ziporyn (2021, pp. 21–24). See also Kopf (2019).

Abbreviations

Ch.:

Chinese

CJP :

Critique of the Power of Judgment

Skt.:

Sanskrit

T:

Taishō Shinshū Daizokyō 大正新脩大藏經 [Buddhist Canon Newly Compiled during the Taishō Era (1912–1926)]. 100 vols. Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe Kaikyōku 渡辺海旭 et al., eds. Tōkyō: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai, 1924–1934. Digitized in CBETA (https://www.cbeta.org) 

References

Primary sources

  • Dushun 杜順. n.d. Cessation and contemplation in the five teachings of Huayan (Huayan wujiao zhiguan famen 華嚴五教止觀法門). T, volume 45, number 1867.

  • Fazang 法藏.n.d.-a Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Huayan jing zhigui 華嚴經旨歸). T, volume 45, number 1871.

  • Fazang 法藏.n.d.-b Treatise on the divisions within the one vehicle doctrine of Huayan (Huayan yicheng jiaoyi fenqi zhang 華嚴一乘教義分齊章). Also known as Treatise on the five teachings of Huayan (Huayan wujiao zhang 華嚴五教章). T, volume 45, number 1866.

  • Nāgārjuna. n.d.Commentary on the Great perfection of wisdom (Da zhidu lun 大智度論). Translated by Kumārajīva. T, volume 25, number 1509.

  • Śikṣānanda 實叉難陀. n.d. Buddhāvataṃsaka-sūtra (Dafangguang Fohuayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經). Also known as Avataṃsaka Sūtra. T, volume 10, number 279.

  • Zhiyan 智儼. n.d. Ten mysterious gates of the unitary vehicle of Huayan (Huayan yicheng shixuan men 華嚴一乘十玄門). T, volume 45, number 1868.

Secondary sources

  • Amijee, F. (2020). Principle of sufficient reason. In M. J. Raven (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of metaphysical grounding (pp. 63–75). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S. (2021). Could a middle level be the most fundamental? Philosophical Studies, 178(4), 1065–1078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, R. (forthcoming). Some work for a theory of grounding? In M. Roques (Ed.), Grounding in medieval philosophy: Brill.

  • Bliss, R., & Priest, G. (2018). Metaphysical dependence, east and west. In S. M. Emmanuel (Ed.), Buddhist philosophy: A comparative approach (pp. 63–85). John Wily & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, E. D. (2018). Divine foundationalism. Philosophy Compass, 13(10), e12524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, D. M. (2007). Homoarchy as a principle of sociopolitical organization: An introduction. Anthropos, 102(1), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chödrön, G.K.M. (2001). The treatise on the great perfection of wisdom by Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra). Karma Changchub Ling.

  • Cleary, T. (1983). Entry into the inconceivable: An introduction to Hua-yen Buddhism. University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. (1993). The flower ornament scripture: A translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Shambhala.

  • Cook, F. H. (1970). Fa-tsang’s treatise on the five doctrines: An annotated translation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin.

  • Crumley, C. L. (1979). Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 141–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, M., Miller, K., & Norton, J. (2018). Ditching determinism and dependence: Or, how to wear the crazy trousers. Synthese, 128(1), 395–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, K. (2005). Tense and reality. In Kit Fine, Modality and tense: Philosophical papers (pp. 261–320). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gang, C. (2009). Hierarchy, form, and reality. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 4(3), 437–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacomo, F. (2021). Early theoretical chemistry: Plato’s chemistry in Timaeus. Foundations of Chemistry, 23, 17–30.

  • Hammond, J. L. (2015). The anarchism of Occupy Wall Street. Science & Society, 79(2), 288–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C.-h. (2014). The way of nonacquisition: Jizang’s philosophy of ontic indeterminacy. In C.-k. Lin & M. Radich (Eds.), A distant mirror: Articulating Indic ideas in sixth and seventh century Chinese Buddhism (pp. 397–418). Hamburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huseyinzadegan, D. (2018). Does Kant have an organic theory of state? In V. L. Waibel, M. Ruffing, & D. Wagner (Eds.), Natur und Fraheit (pp. 2557–2564). De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, D. (2020). Social organisms: Hegel's organizational theory of social functions. In R. Hufendiek, D. James, & R. van Riel (Eds.), Social functions in philosophy: Metaphysical, normative, and methodological perspectives (pp. 219–246). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N. (2018). The metaphysics of identity in Fazang’s Huayan Wujiao Zhang: The inexhaustible freedom of dependent origination. In Y. Wang & S. A. Wawrytko (Eds.), Dao companion to Chinese Buddhist philosophy (pp. 295–323). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N. (2022). Interpreting interdependence in Fazang’s metaphysics. The Journal of East Asian Philosophy, 2(1), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment, trans. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2004). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics, trans. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopf, G. (2019). Emptiness, multiverses, and the conception of multi-entry philosophy. APA Newsletter/Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies, 19(1), 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronen, J., & Tuttle, J. (2011). Composite substances as true wholes: Toward a modified Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika theory of composite substances. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 41(2), 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, K. (2018). The sound of ontology: Music as a model for metaphysics. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, E. P. (1982). Metaphysical foundations of the hierarchy of being according to some Late-Medieval and Renaissance philosophers. In P. Morewedge (Ed.), Philosophies of existence, ancient and medieval (pp. 165–257). New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. D. (2015). Fundamental disputations: The philosophical debates that governed American physics, 1939-1993. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 45(5), 703–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, K. (2022). Fundamentality and grounding. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1972). Artificial Intelligence Progress Report. In MIT Artificial Intelligence Memo No. 252. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. D. (2020). Perspectives, representation, and integration. In M. Massimi & C. D. McCoy (Eds.), Understanding perspectivism: scientific challenges and methodological prospects (pp. 178–193). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morganti, M. (2014). Metaphysical infinitism and the regress of being. Metaphilosophy, 45(2), 232–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morganti, M. (2018). From ontic structural realism to metaphysical coherentism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberle, T. (2022). Metaphysical foundationalism: Consensus and controversy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 59(1), 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E. (2014). Our egalitarian Eden. Science, 344(6186), 824–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (2018). Buddhist dependence. In R. Bliss & G. Priest (Eds.), Reality and its structure: Essays in fundamentality (pp. 126–139). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, G. O., & Rabern, B. (2016). Well founding grounding. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(4), 349–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, M. S. (1978). Society without a state. Nomos, 19, 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D. (1958). Social stratification in Polynesia. University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahko, T. E. (2018). Fundamentality and ontological minimality. In R. Bliss & G. Priest (Eds.), Reality and its structure: Essays in fundamentality (pp. 237–253). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, N. (2016). Metaphysical interdependence. In M. Jago (Ed.), Reality making (pp. 38–56). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentino, L. (2021). The Heterarchy of occupational status: Evidence for diverse logics of prestige in the United States. Sociological Forum, 36(S1), 1395–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdon, M. (1982). On the laws of physical and human nature: Hobbes' physical and social cosmologies. Journal of the History of Ideas, 43(4), 653–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. M. (1981). On Abhidharma ontology. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 9(3), 227–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziporyn, B. (2021). Why Chinese Buddhist philosophy? Journal of Buddhist Philosophy, 3, 4–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Political Science, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA

    Nicholaos Jones

Authors
  1. Nicholaos Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholaos Jones.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, N. Metaphysical foundationalism, heterarchical structure, and Huayan interdependence. AJPH 2, 65 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-023-00117-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-023-00117-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation